A/HRC/8/7* page 4 it difficult to adjudicate them without interfering with decisions by Governments concerning resource allocation. Nigeria stressed that the fact that the realization of economic, social and cultural rights was subject to a State’s available resources made their adjudication difficult for developing countries. 11. Some delegations favoured clear criteria for the assessment of violations of these rights, such as reasonableness and unreasonableness and a wide margin of appreciation for States in their policy choices. Several delegations and non-governmental organizations rejected codifying these criteria. 12. In view of the severe resource constraints faced by developing countries, Bangladesh, China, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Republic of Korea, Amnesty International and CETIM supported including a provision on international assistance and cooperation. A number of delegations expressed the view that such a provision did not belong to an optional protocol. 13. The NGO Coalition stated that an optional protocol should include provisions for an inquiry procedure, interim measures and a prohibition of reservations. IV. REVIEW OF THE FIRST REVISED DRAFT 14. During the first part of its fifth session, held from 4 to 8 February 2008, the Working Group reviewed the first revised draft optional protocol (A/HRC/8/WG.4/2), in which amendments to the original draft (A/HRC/6/WG.4/2) were indicated in bold font. Preamble 15. The Russian Federation suggested shortening the preamble to one or two paragraphs. 16. With regard to paragraph 1, Argentina, Bangladesh, Chile, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Mexico supported the original text. 17. With regard to paragraph 2, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Finland, France, Haiti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the NGO Coalition favoured the original text. 18. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), India, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland preferred using the exact quotation from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some delegations noted that an alternative was to drop the explicit reference to the Declaration and to include similar language to that of the preamble of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 19. With regard to paragraph 4, India and the Netherlands favoured the original wording. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden preferred to either delete the paragraph or keep the original wording. 20. Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Lesotho, Morocco, the Russian Federation, Senegal and South Africa suggested adding text so as to quote the full text of paragraph 5 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.